Link-in-bio pages

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, and the description adds real economics on top: each call costs the credits shown, the result reports charged and remaining credits, and failures are free. It also discloses caching semantics (max_age_days yields a free cached copy) and pagination via a returned cursor — behavior an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then calling conventions, then a scannable resource list — good structure with no filler sentences. Minor redundancy in repeating '1 credit' five times, though the uniform cost format is arguably scannable rather than wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a dispatcher tool with no output schema, it covers what an agent needs: available resources, argument placement, credit cost, caching, and pagination, plus a description of returned content. The only shortfall is that it promises per-resource optional parameters elsewhere in the schema but never enumerates them, so deeper per-resource detail still requires `describe`.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: it explains that resource-specific arguments go top-level with leftovers in `params`, and it documents the `cursor` round-trip even though `cursor` is not declared as a schema property. One gap: the schema defers optional per-resource parameters to 'the tool description', but the description lists none, leaving the agent to call `describe`.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Read a creator's link-in-bio page', names the concrete providers (Linktree, Komi, Pillar, Linkbio, Linkme), and says exactly what content is returned (links, socials, contact buttons). The resource enum plus the per-resource list makes the scope unambiguous against siblings such as get_profile or instagram.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear procedural guidance: choose a `resource`, pass that resource's parameters as top-level arguments, put extras in `params`, and reuse the returned `cursor` unchanged for the next page. It also states when to prefer `max_age_days` (free cached copy). It stops short of saying when NOT to use this tool versus sibling profile/creator tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.